[cdi-dev] Fw: Answer from EL spec lead: no, "." is not valid in an EL name.
jharting at redhat.com
Wed Jan 14 04:54:20 EST 2015
I think further action is needed on this. Now that it has been confirmed
that "javax.enterprise.context.conversation" itself is not a valid EL
name we should either:
A) Require all CDI implementations to adapt the property-based approach
which allows this to be implemented portably (as Weld does)
B) Declare publicly that although the CDI spec declares the given name,
it is a bug and applications should not use the name. (What about
compatibility with existing applications?)
On 01/08/2015 09:27 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Dear CDI fellows!
> I've received an answer regarding our EL question from the EL Spec Lead.
> Ed, thanks for helping us!
>> On Tuesday, 6 January 2015, 23:14, Edward Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Hello Mark,
>> To close this out, no, "." is not valid in an EL name. An EL name
>> be a java identifier. I'm told this was discussed by Pete a long time
>> ago in the EL 3.0 EG.
>> | edward.burns at oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
>> | 42 days til DevNexus 2015
>> | 52 days til JavaLand 2015
>> | 62 days til CONFESS 2015
> cdi-dev mailing list
> cdi-dev at lists.jboss.org
> Note that for all code provided on this list, the provider licenses the code under the Apache License, Version 2 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html). For all other ideas provided on this list, the provider waives all patent and other intellectual property rights inherent in such information.
More information about the cdi-dev